Letters to the Editor/Guest
Editorials
A Former Student's
Adjunct Odyssey
By Michael Donovan
I grew up a fairly stereo-typical California
suburbanite. I showed some academic promise, played
some sports, and watched a lot of television. I
grew up knowing more about Happy Days than Homer's
Odyssey; but my suburban life style provided enough
that I foresaw no need to aspire for more. After
all, I was very comfortable. Of course, I also
experienced an underbelly of my suburban life.
Suffering through family crises within my otherwise
complacent world created a surreal psychological
confusion. Rather than growing up in a place that
openly discussed the roots of people's suffering, I
grew up internalizing the sentiment that such
discussions achieved little, and just "ruined the
party" for everyone else. I tried to live a
double-life, publicly maintaining my academic and
athletic pursuits, later adding to them a series of
teenage jobs. Yet I privately sought ways of
understanding my experiences through such
predictably teenage means as listening to, learning
about, and writing song lyrics. I became a big John
Lennon fan. I loved Pink Floyd's "The Wall." I
listened to some punk. This wasn't an attempt to
replace my previously complacent suburban ways,
though. I was accommodating them, I think.
Relegating reflections on my life's problems to
private moments allowed me to avoid becoming one of
those "troubled teens" that "ruin the party" for
everyone else's comfortable existence.
Santa Rosa Junior College changed this.
My first semester I took English 1A with Shirley
Kotite-Young. I had difficulty getting excited
about the class, probably because the only book I'd
ever read cover-to-cover was a book about Jim
Morrison and The Doors. But Shirley had a way of
making the process exciting, and I found myself
trying to read for as long as I could tolerate doing
so without understanding anything; and I went to
class actually hoping to make sense of what I was
reading. Then one day she caught my attention like
no teacher ever had. While talking about Oscar
Wilde's Salome, Shirley made a reference to one of
my favorite rock bands, Oingo Boingo. I no longer
remember what she said. I doubt I even understood
it at the time. But I was struck by the fact that
she not only knew about my private world of song
lyrics, but was treating it as an art form. If
Oscar Wilde was exploring life's underbelly the way
my favorite song lyrics did, then I wanted to be
able to understand him.
I never became an English major, though. During my
years at Santa Rosa Junior College I thought of
myself as a computer science major, a math major, a
psychology major, and, finally, eventually, a
philosophy major. I began as a computer science
major in hope of achieving a means of making an
income. Sure, I enjoyed learning about computers,
but that wasn't why I studied it. I thought school
was about learning how to make money. I still was
trying to maintain my complacency. Santa Rosa
Junior College taught me that school could be about
much more. Whether it was my Fortran programming
course, the math courses I took with Patrick Boyle,
my psychology courses with Marilyn Milligan, my
history course with the "George Carlin" of history
teachers, Dean Frazer, art history with Sarah Gill,
or philosophy with George Freund, I encountered
instructors who were excited about their topics and
encouraged me to aspire for more.
It took awhile for their examples to become my
models, though. I wasn't very motivated as a SRJC
student. I enjoyed math, but rarely completed
homework assignments, and would approach tests
ill-prepared. Still Pat Boyle encouraged me to
aspire for more. I got a 'C' in history, but Dean
Frazer still encouraged me to talk with him in his
office, treating me with respect, as someone capable
of excelling in history rather than simply someone
who "got by" with a 'C'. Sarah Gill noticed I liked
Salvador Dali; and though she didn't shy from her
opinion that he as a hack, she seized the moment as
an opportunity to engage me in enjoyable discussions
about art (something I wouldn't have been caught
dead doing only a couple years earlier). Marilyn
Milligan downplayed my erratic attendance, focusing
instead on my tendency to ask questions. To this
day I remember feeling confused about the fact she
would respond to my inquiries by recommending extra
readings. Extra readings? Reading when I didn't
have to? What was happening to me? These changes
seemed to peek once I started taking philosophy
courses with George Freund. I found myself
regularly spending hours in is office, talking about
everything from Socrates to Monty Python to whether
Neil Young or Frank Zappa wrote better songs. I
still don't understand George's attraction to Zappa.
Just as importantly, though, I started to take it
for granted that I was registering for courses in
order to learn. I finally had accepted that I could
turn to school the way I used to turn to song
lyrics. School had replaced my teenage years'
private reflections, showed me how a wide range of
topics from math, to anthropology, to psychology, to
history, to english, to philosophy, could help me
understand, appreciate, and cope with my life's
experiences. As hyperbolic as it might seem, Santa
Rosa Junior College saved my life, at least the life
I had discovered as a curious teenager trying to
make sense of my world. Santa Rosa Junior College
taught me how not to be complacent, thoughtlessly
accepting my circumstances. The Santa Rosa Junior
College community -- people such as Shirley
Kotite-Young, Patrick Boyle, Sarah Gill, Dean
Frazer, Marilyn Milligan, and George Freund --
helped me become a more self-reliant, curious,
independent thinker. They taught me how to be more
Socratic! Then, on top of this all, there was Jean
Simons, who taught me to aspire towards the
knowledge of Socrates, the wisdom of Buddha, and the
heart of Christ.
Shortly after leaving Santa Rosa Junior College I
decided to pursue a Ph.D. in philosophy. The
decision really was, to a large part, to return to
SRJC. Of course I loved philosophy! But I loved my
experiences at SRJC even more. During the 7 years I
was away completing my education, I regularly
returned. I'd have my office visits with George
Freund, my lunches with Will Baty, my conversations
with Marilyn Milligan, Shirley Kotite-Young, Ross
Grossman, and Jean Simons. The visits were just
enough to keep me feeling connected. My time away
was more than enough to realize that Santa Rosa
Junior College had become home. I looked forward to
the day that I would return home!
That day came in late August, 1994, when I
returned
to Santa Rosa Junior College as an adjunct
instructor in the Philosophy Department. My time
with the Philosophy Department has been even more
inspiring than my years as a SRJC student. I have
been given the opportunity to teach a wide array of
courses, from Critical Thinking, to Critical
Thinking For Reading and Writing, to Introduction to
Philosophy, to Contemporary Moral Issues, and most
recently History of Modern Philosophy. I have been
encouraged to create a new course, Political
Philosophy, which I'll be teaching for the first
time Fall 2000. Though a number of my colleagues
were initially reluctant to pursue online
instruction, they thoughtfully listened to those of
us who suggested it had promise. Everett Traverso
even helped me get a SRJC grant to create a
Philosophy Department web site. Joel Rudinow gave
me the opportunity to create an online Critical
Thinking tutorial (along with an instructors manual)
that was published with his Harcourt Brace textbook,
Invitation to Critical Thinking. The whole
department supported my efforts to offer an online
Critical Thinking course, which I'll also be
teaching for the first time Fall 2000. To suggest
that I've been supported is an understatement. Yet,
such personal experiences really are only the icing
on the cake. At the center has been the respectful
practices that Philosophy Department maintains. Not
only are adjunct instructors encouraged to attend
department meetings. Not only are we given an equal
opportunity to introduce agenda items. Not only are
we given an equal voice during department
discussions (whether or not we're discussing
"adjunct issues"). The department seeks decisions
through a consensus between every faculty member
attending department meetings. I never hear my
status as an adjunct mentioned in the middle of a
discussion as a way of alienating my contribution.
Adjuncts in the Philosophy Department are addressed
as Michael, David, and Steve. We are peers. We are
welcomed. We are respected. We are made to feel at
home! As much as anything else, my treatment by
the Philosophy Department is captured by the fact
that I am confident "if" I ever get a full-time
position, my treatment by my peers will change very
little (Well, I would expect to receive occasional
phone calls asking if I have time to take on an
administrative task; but I wouldn't interpret this
as the sign of new found respect).
Yet I am compelled to add " " to the word "if" when
I write "if I ever get a full-time position." What
troubles me is that those " " are a gnawing reminder
that this conditional is not even primarily a matter
of quality. While I perceive quality as a criteria
that can and often does prevent adjunct instructors
from getting a full-time position, quality seems to
play very little role in determining when adjunct
instructors get a full-time position. Such
decisions sometimes are influenced by policy in
Sacramento, but seemingly have more to do with SRJC
accounting calculations regarding the number of FTE
in a department compared with its
full-time/part-time faculty ratio. Certainly the
decision who is chosen to be a new full-time
instructor is not based on this. The point is that
such decisions are secondary, coming only after the
economic decision that there will be a new full-time
faculty position. While it is important to maintain
economic viability, it also is important to consider
what happens when an educational community is
dominated by such concerns. One result is that the
distinction between full-time faculty and part-time
faculty no longer is a qualitative distinction.
"If" I ever get a full-time position at Santa Rosa
Junior College it no longer will be a reward for my
achievements and promise, but for my enduring the
reluctance of "accounting decisions" to recognize
achievements and promise. In the meantime, that I
get paid significantly less than full-time faculty
(both in the classroom and in general) and that I
still do not get health benefits feel like salt
being placed in wound. But, as far as I can tell,
the knife that creates the wound is the way that my
status as an adjunct instructor functions as a
reminder of my role as a cost-saving measure more
than the quality of my contribution to my beloved
SRJC.
While I was unfamiliar with the details of such
matters, I was aware of the "economic use" of the
adjunct position when I was student at Santa Rosa
Junior College. When I began my journey as a former
SRJC student returning home as an adjunct
instructor, however, I was not prepared for my
encounters with complacency. It is important not to
exaggerate the following point. I do not want to
suggest that I believe the SRJC community, to any
significant degree, deliberately seeks to add salt
to the wounds that adjunct instructors endure. What
I occasionally encounter is a complacency that
reminds me of my suburban childhood, a complacency
that has the effect of adding salt to the wounds
that adjuncts endure. What I fear is that my
beloved SRJC will become a place that does not
openly discuss the roots of our community's
suffering, a place where adjunct instructors
internalize the sentiment that such discussions
achieve little, and just "ruin the party" for
everyone else. I worry about such things when
people mention recent improvements in adjunct
conditions as a way to dismiss attempts to
ameliorate our conditions further. I worry about
such things when people refer to the fact that SRJC
adjunct instructors get paid for office hours, as if
this is reason to dismiss attempts to ameliorate our
condition further. I worry about such things when
people note that some adjuncts do not want to be
full-time faculty, as if this is reason to dismiss
the reality that the "economic use" of the adjunct
position prevents many adjuncts (who want and
deserve full-time employment) from getting
full-time, or is reason to dismiss attempts to
ameliorate adjunct conditions further. I worry
about such things when people emphasize that some
adjuncts use their teaching position as a secondary
source of income, as if this warrants unequal pay
and benefits, or is reason to dismiss other attempts
to ameliorate adjunct conditions further. I worry
about such things when people focus on demonstrating
SRJC's sincere attempt to meet a minimal compliance
with the % of full-timers that we are legally
required to have, as if this warrants dismissing
attempts to remind the SRJC community that we should
be discussing ways of achieving more than what's
minimally required by law, or is reason to dismiss
other attempts to ameliorate adjunct conditions
further. I worry about such things when people
suggest that "the problem" is Sacramento policy, as
if the SRJC community makes no difference at all,
and warrants dismissing attempts to ameliorate
adjunct conditions further. Each of these points
have their place in discussions about adjunct
conditions, and should be factors when we reflect
upon how to deal with these unjust conditions, but
when they are used as reactions against such
reflections, as ways to dismiss discussions about
adjunct conditions, they are Red Herrings, the type
of fallacies that I try to teach my students to
avoid. It pains me to report that I have
repeatedly heard each of these fallacies. For me,
it's as if some of my family members have developed
a habit of ignoring phone messages when family
problems are discussed. Among other things, it's
disrespectful.
It also is disrespectful when adjunct instructors
adopt analogous fallacies. Just as minimizing the
role that the Santa Rosa Junior College community
plays in perpetuating adjunct conditions is
fallacious, minimizing the role that Sacramento
policy plays is fallacious. The SRJC community --
including adjunct instructors -- needs to develop
comprehensive visions that accurately account for
the different factors contributing to adjuncts'
unjust conditions. Similarly, it is important to be
thoughtful when adopting our rhetoric. Terms such
"Orwellian" or "flimsy logic" are abrasive and tend
to be hyperbolic. While using terms such as
invalid, unsound, and fallacious tend not to have
the expediant rhetorical effect of provoking charged
emotional responses, they are less vague, more
accurate, and more respectful. In general, it is
important to approach our plight in a manner that
builds consensus. Demonization, unnecessarily
antagonistic rhetoric, and other fallacious uses of
language are as dismissive as the fallacies I
addressed in the previous paragraph. Our goal is to
transform our beloved SRJC.
Since coming back to Santa Rosa Junior College as an
instructor, I sometimes feel a bit like I've
returned from Oz but can't quite remember where
Kansas is. I realize that it can be difficult to
live up to the expectations of one's youthful
memories. I don't expect SRJC to do so. I don't
think I suffer from a delusional nostalgia, though,
when I suggest we can do much better. I do not
want to worry about important issues being dismissed
or addressed with fallacies that tend to embitter
more than anything else. I want to be able to
expect the Santa Rosa Junior College community to
seek edifying discussions about any suffering that
occurs in our community, including the injustices
that adjuncts endure. I want to be able to think of
everyone at my beloved SRJC as advocates for the
entire SRJC community, including its adjunct
members. We should be trying to problem-solve,
figuring out ways that we can improve our community.
We should be trying to bring our case to
Sacramento lawmakers and the general public, helping
them understand the neglect that our system seems to
suffer. The issues are complex, and the solutions
are not completely in our control. But much is in
our control; and, if my 19 years of experiences with
Santa Rosa Junior College has taught me anything,
it's that we are capable of aspiring.
top of page